Ceremonial Uncleanness and Purification of Women in Childbirth

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 12:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

The dietary laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but now the Lord spoke only to Moses.

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean.'"

The Lord instructed Moses to tell the children of Israel of these additional clean and unclean laws.  First He began with a woman whom had given birth to a male child.  Immediately after the birth, she was to be considered unclean for seven days afterward which is apparently the same amount of time a woman was considered unclean after her regular monthly menstruation began.

(3) "‘And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'"

On the eighth day, that is, the baby boy's eighth day of life and after the seven days that the mother was considered ceremonially unclean, the baby boy was to be circumcised.

(4) "'And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying thirty-three days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying are fulfilled.'"

After the circumcision of her male child, the mother was to continue a period of purification for another 33 days, which made a total of forty days' purification.  During this time, she was to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the court of the sanctuary.  This uncleanness was in no way considered the fault of the woman or as a punishment to her, but was a result of the time it took for the natural expulsion of blood and afterbirth after the birth of a child.  As the Lord considered it a blessing to bring forth children, this was an example of a time when a person would necessarily become unclean, through no fault of her own, but by observing the days of purification, she would then be restored to a clean state, and could approach the Lord.  Thankfully, our Lord Jesus Christ came as our ultimate sacrifice to cover us with His precious blood, so that we are now able to approach our Lord God with boldness and confidence (Ephesians 3:12).

(5) "‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty-six days.'"

If the woman gave birth to a female child, she was to be considered unclean for two weeks, in the same way she was considered unclean during her regular monthly menstruation.  Why double the time as for a male child?  For one thing, the male was to be circumcised on the eighth day; no such time constraint was on a female child.  The mother's period of purification for a female child continued another 66 days, making it a total of 80 days, doubling the forty days for a male child.  Offended feminists have long hated such perceived discrepancies between the sexes in the Bible, but there may be a plausible and justified explanation for the discrepancy.  Not that God Almighty needs a justification; that it was His will alone is justification enough.  However, generally there was what we lesser humans would consider good sound reasoning behind such laws of the Lord, and this may be no exception.  Through circumcision, the male child satisfied half the required purification time.  It was not that more time was required when a woman had a female child, but rather only half the usual time was required when a woman had a male child because the baby participated in the purification requirements.

(6) "'And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest.'"

Once her purification period had ended, whether 40 days or 80 days, the woman was to bring to the tabernacle to the priest, a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering.  She offered a burnt offering in thanksgiving to God for bringing her safely through child-bearing and in gratefulness for the blessing of the child; and she offered a sin offering to either complete her purification process from her ceremonial uncleanness, or to make atonement for what was really sin that may have occurred during the difficult pains of child-bearing.

(7) "'Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.'"

The priest would take what the woman brought to him at the door of the tabernacle, and in turn, offer it before the Lord to make atonement for her for whatever sin may have occurred during her child-bearing, and to ceremonially cleanse her from the flow of blood from childbirth.  This same law applied whether it took place after 40 days for a male child, or if it took place after 80 days for a female child.

(8) "‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

If the woman was unable to bring a lamb, because she did not have one, nor could afford one, then the law allowed that she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons instead, one being for the burnt offering and the other for the sin offering.  This was the case for Mary, the mother of Jesus; it was written in Luke 2:22-24 that when her days of purification were accomplished, she brought either a pair of turtledoves or a pair of pigeons.  It was suggested earlier that perhaps the sin offering was to atone for any sin which may have occurred during the difficulty of childbirth, but more likely it was acknowledgement that all are born into sin and guilty and deserving of death since the original sin by Eve.  This sin offering may have served as a remembrance of that original sin and of the promise as stated in 1 Timothy 2:15 that she would be saved through child-bearing if she would "continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control"; that is what pleases the Lord better than sacrifice:

"To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3

I will end this short post here.  I had originally continued my study and post into the next chapter, but as it is so long and unrelated, I will start a new post for that one, and will end this one here.

The Dietary Laws Concerning Clean and Unclean Animals

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 11:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them,

After the sad interruption to the institution of the levitical law in the last post, resulting in the immediate death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, the Lord now spoke to both Moses and Aaron, the first being His chief magistrate and the second His high priest.  The Lord said:

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:'"

The Lord instructed Moses and Aaron to speak these words to the children of Israel, giving them dietary laws regarding what animals on the earth they could eat.  A distinction between clean and unclean animals had already been made before the flood; in Genesis 7:2, it was said that Noah took seven of every clean animal, and only two of the unclean.  The distinction between clean and unclean was now more fully explained:

(3) "'Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat.'"

The beasts that were allowed to be eaten had to possess all three characteristics as described above.  First, they had parted "hooves", that were "cloven" or split in two, to distinguish from animals which might have parted feet like dogs or cats but were not cased with the hoof horn, or animals with single hooves like horses.  In addition to the cloven hoof, the edible animals must chew the cud.  These animals chew and chew over and over again, even bringing up food to chew again, as they have more than one stomach for rumination.  This makes the food better prepared for digestion, therefore yielding better nutrition, and makes these animals fitter for food.

(4) "‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

As further and better explanation, the Lord described animals that might possess one or two qualities, but not the third, and were therefore not clean to eat.  The camel chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves.  Google described the foot of a camel as this:  "The foot of a camel is made up of a large leathery pad, with two toes at the front, the bones of which are embedded in the foot. The padding makes the gait of a camel silent, and keeps it from sinking in the sand."  Therefore, the camel was considered unclean to eat.

(5) "'And the coney, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The coney was a species of rock rabbit, or hyrax.  It chewed the cud, but did not have true cloven hooves, but rather had stumpy toes with hooflike nails, four toes on each front foot and three on each back foot, from what I have read.  This animal was unclean to eat.

(6) "'And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;'"

The original word for "hare" here was "arnebeth".  The early commentators that I routinely study believe that "hare" was either a translation error or it may have been an extinct animal that no longer exists, "because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as 'arnebeth'” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions).  However, many Biblical scholars since that time have explained that this was not an error or a contradiction in the Bible, but rather the term "chewing the cud" had a much broader meaning 3500 years ago than it does today in our modern man-made classification system.  One article from Answers in Genesis (I love this site!) explains it this way:

"Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

"Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of 'cud' had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

"But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated 'chew' is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as 'chew the cud' literally means something on the order of 'eats that which is brought forth again.'

"So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments."

Back to the scripture, even though hares chewed the cud, in a less restrictive way than we have come to know the meaning of the phrase, they did not have cloven hooves, and therefore were considered unclean.

(7) "'And the swine, though it divides the hoof and is clovenfooted, yet it does not chew the cud; it is unclean to you'"

The swine was completely cloven-footed, but because it did not chew the cud, it was unclean.  The pig seems to have always been regarded as the most unclean of all the four-legged animals.  It lives in filth and eats filthy food, and with only one stomach, there is no chewing the cud or rumination with it, so its flesh was certainly less wholesome, especially in hot climates. 

(8) "'Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.'"

The people were commanded not to eat the flesh of the animals in the preceding list, but also were commanded not to touch their carcasses, as they were unclean.  This prohibition must have only referred to the eating and handling of the dead unclean animals, as the animals were used in other ways.  They rode camels and used hogs' lard in medicines.  I don't see how you could get a hog's lard without touching a dead hog, but there were many provisions for a person who was temporarily considered unclean.  One simply could not avoid sometimes coming in contact with a dead animal, as in the instance of his camel dying on him.  Therefore, I could understand that the unclean animals might could be used in other ways; it just might be that those were unclean jobs and would require sacrificial cleansing.  However, the eating of the unclean animals was expressly prohibited.

(9) "‘These you shall eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers, they you shall eat.'"

Any fish that had both fins and scales, and lived in either fresh or salt water, was lawful to eat.

(10) "'And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination to you. (11) They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.'"

All water creatures that did not have both fins and scales, whether found in fresh water or salt, were unlawful to eat.  This would include eels, catfish, etc.  It is stressed that all things that move in the waters and any living things that were in the waters (that did not have fins and scales) were unlawful to eat.  This would include small worms or leeches and any shellfish, as well as perhaps huge sea serpents.  Not only were these types unlawful to eat, but they were an abomination, things to be abhorred and detested, not only with regard to eating them, but as of touching their carcasses, as well.

(12) "‘Whatever has no fins or scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.'"

I find it interesting that it was stated three times that these finless and scaleless fish were an abomination.  I think it was well established that shellfish and catfish were not to be eaten!

(13) "'And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, ossifrage, and the osprey,'"

Next began a long list of birds that were not to be eaten and were to be considered an abomination.  There was no general description of what types of birds were allowed to be eaten, as with cloven-hoofed cud-chewing beasts, and finned and scaled fish, but just a list of the birds that were considered an abomination and not to be eaten.  In general, the list seems to contain scavengers and birds of prey.  It began with the eagle, the ossifrage, and the osprey.  The original word for "ossifrage" was "peres" which meant "claw" from the word "paras" which meant "break into pieces".  "Ossifrage" is a combination of two words, "osseous" and "fraction" and literally meant "bone-breaker".  Whatever it was, it was a bird that tore apart its food with its claws, and Brown-Driver-Briggs defined it as a bird of prey.  The "osprey" is a fish hawk, a large hawk that feeds on fish.

(14) "'And the vulture, and the kite after its kind;'"

The original word for "vulture" here is "daah" which means "to dart, to fly rapidly".  This is the only place in the Bible this particular word is used as a noun describing a bird, and that has led some Bible scholars to think it may have been, if not mistranslated, then reversed, and the verse should have read "...the kite, and the vulture after its kind..."  In Job 28:7, the word is "ayah" that is transcribed as "vulture", and that is the word that is translated as "kite" in the above verse, Leviticus 11:14.  Strong's defines "ayah" as "the screamer", or "a hawk, kite, or vulture"; Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as "hawk, falcon, or kite".  Both appear to be birds of prey, darting rapidly and screaming.

(15) "'Every raven after its kind;'"

Also considered an abomination and not to be eaten was the raven, the general term for scavenger birds of this kind, including the crow and magpie and other similar birds.

(16) "'And the owl, the night hawk, the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind;'"

The words translated as "owl" were actually two words that look like "daughters of the owl".  Some Bible scholars believe this might be rather the ostrich, since the owl is mentioned again later. The original word translated as "night hawk" was "tachmas" which comes from a root word meaning "to be violent" which Strong's says indicates it was some unclean bird of prey.  The word translated as "cuckoo" was "shachaph" from an unused root word that meant "to peel, that is, emaciate", and therefore indicated a slight lean bird.  The cuckoo is generally a slender bird, which led Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, to conclude, "A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited."  However, the cuckoo's diet and dietary habits are not particularly repulsive or abominable, which has led some scholars to believe that the sea mew or mew gull was more likely meant.  I don't see that the mew gull is particularly slender, but it is a small gull.  Brown-Driver-Briggs apparently wasn't completely satisfied with that translation, either, as one of their definitions was that it possibly was "an extinct bird, exact meaning unknown".  The original word for the last hawk mentioned in verse 16 was "nets" which can mean a flower or a hawk!  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs says it's possible this was an extinct bird, but Strong's suggests that because the root word means "glare" or "brilliance", it refers to the bird's glaring or flashing speed.  Adam Clarke suggested the root actually meant something more akin to "shoot forth or spring forward" which referred to a flower, as well as the rapidity and length of flight of the hawk.

(17) "'And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;'"

The word translated as "little owl" was "kos" and came from an unused root word meaning "hold together" or "cup".  Strong's suggested that the large cup-like cavity of the owl's eye might be why the word was also translated as "small owl".  I personally wondered if a pelican or some such bird might be meant because of the cup or pouch in its beak.  I found that some early scholars believed this was a possibility, too, but most rejected it because a later verse appears to include the pelican.  The original word translated as "cormorant" was "shalak" from a root word that means "to throw out or down, or cast".  It probably refers to a plunger or diver type bird.  The word translated as "great owl" was "yanshoph", and may be derived from the word "nesheph" meaning "twilight", the time in which owls mainly fly.

(18) "'And the swan, the pelican, and the gier eagle;'"

These words are getting almost impossible to positively translate, and I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the weeds!   The word translated as "swan" has been translated by other versions and by Bible scholars as anything from a flamingo to an owl!  The same word is translated as "mole" elsewhere, so who knows?  Brown-Driver-Briggs in one definition suffices to state that it's "an unclean animal of some kind" and also "perhaps an extinct lizard or bird, exact meaning unknown".  Here we have the word translated as "pelican"--"qaath", from the root word "qayah" meaning "to vomit", which may refer to the practice by the pelican.  The original word translated as "gier eagle" was "racham" which means "to love, be compassionate, be tender".  This is apparently a bird that tenderly cared for its young, which could mean the eagle or the vulture, or even the pelican that vomited to feed its young.

(19) "'And the stork, the heron after its kind, the lapwing, and the bat.'"

The original word for "stork" was "chasiydah", a form of the word "chasiyd" meaning "kind".  The stork seems to exemplify kindness throughout historical writings because of its tenderness to its young and its kindness in tending to its elderly parents.  The word translated as "heron" is another translated far and wide as many different words, so who knows?  "Lapwing" comes from a word admittedly of "uncertain derivation", stated by Strong's, so again, I would say it was anyone's guess as to what bird is meant.  Because Strong's only tells me that the word for "bat" is also of uncertain derivation, I will defer completely to Adam Clarke who wrote, "so called, according to Parkhurst, at, to fly, and alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night...This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided."

(20) "'All fowls that creep, going upon all fours, shall be an abomination to you.'"

The word translated as "fowls" was "oph" which literally meant "covered with wings".  "Going upon all fours" is probably just a term that meant walking on the ground as opposed to flying in the air.  It may not literally mean only four feet or legs.  Winged creatures that walked on all fours would be an abomination.  This description would certainly include the bat mentioned before, but as far as six legged insects go, the following verses address them.

(21) "‘Yet these you may eat of every flying creeping thing that goes on all fours: those which have legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.'"

"Legs above their feet" surely referred to the large jointed legs of the grasshopper, cricket, and locust.  Although they were actually six-legged insects, these winged creeping things with large jointed back legs, larger and jointed above their other legs that crept upon the earth, were able to leap in great bounds upon the earth, and were considered clean and lawful to eat.

(22) "‘These of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.'"

Apparently a continuation from verse 21, the flying creeping things with legs above their feet with which to leap, included the locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.  It is not known exactly how a bald locust differs from a regular locust.  Also worth noting, the KJV used the word "beetle" instead of cricket, but it was the only place in scripture that particular original word was found.  The actual meaning of the word "chargol" was "leaping insect", so a beetle could not be meant, but it's understandable how a cricket might look like a jumping beetle rather than a grasshopper.  It can be safely assumed that what is meant by this verse is that all varieties of grasshoppers, crickets, and locusts, having those large jointed leaping legs, were lawful to eat.

(23) "‘But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.'"

I did not previously examine the word translated as "creeping things" before this mention.  The word "sherets" means "swarming things" and was used to mean insects.  The verse refers to all other flying insects which have four feet.  Apparently, locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets, were considered having only four feet and additionally having powerful leapers.  Therefore, any other flying insect that appeared to have only four legs as described above, was considered an abomination and unlawful to eat.  But what about insects that do not fly?  What about ants?  I honestly did not find that addressed in scripture.  Most scholars feel like "creeping things" or "swarming things" covered all insects, but scripture did say "flying creeping things".  I know some ants fly, but not all six-legged bugs fly, so it seemed to me those were not addressed.  Maybe I will come across it later in scripture.  Meanwhile, I did find a good article that gave a good summary on the characteristics of clean and unclean insects:

Characteristics of Clean and Unclean Insects

"Most orthoptera (an order of insects including grasshoppers and crickets) are vegetarians. Grasshoppers, according to Hemenway, have a crop, gizzard, gastric caeca (intestines) and a stomach, in that order, from front to back. Like clean animals, grasshoppers chew their food with two powerful grinding jaws called mandibles. Unclean insects are generally scavengers, omnivores and occasionally predators. They bite and suck instead of chew thoroughly like the grasshopper. Even though bees are unclean, their honey is fit to eat, since it is converted pollen from flowers, and not actually from the bees themselves.

"Many unclean "creeping things" are notorious disease carriers. Hemenway notes that mosquitoes transmit malaria, yellow fever, and other diseases. Flies transmit tularemia, ticks can transmit germs of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and rats host fleas which carry Bubonic plague, and can transmit numerous diseases and parasites to man."

* Note - I am assuming the Hemenway mentioned in the article above is David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Back to scripture:

(24) "'And by these you shall be unclean: whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening.'"

"By these" following circumstances, a person was considered to be unclean.  The list began with the incident of a person who touched the carcass of an unclean animal from the ones described above; if that happened, he would be considered unclean until the evening.  In many cases, it would be necessary for someone to touch the dead carcass of an unclean animal, if only to remove it, so this was more of a ceremonial uncleanness, which prohibited the one who touched the unclean carcass to come into the tabernacle, to eat of the holy things, etc., until evening.

(25) "'And whoever carries any part of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

Whoever did carry any part of the carcass of an unclean animal was to wash his clothes, but still be considered ceremonially unclean until evening.

(26) "'The carcasses of every beast which divides the hoof, but is not cloven-footed nor chews the cud, are unclean to you; everyone who touches them shall be unclean.'"

A review of the type of animal that would be considered unclean--one whose hoof might be divided, but not cloven-hoofed, and one that did not chew the cud--that animal's carcass would be unclean and anyone who touched its carcass would be considered unclean until evening.

(27) "‘And whatever goes on its paws, among all kinds of animals that go on all fours, those are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.'"

The original word for "paws", that is "kaph", was usually translated as "hands", so this would indicate animals that had hand-like feet, divided like fingers.  Those animals that walked on their paws among the animals that went on all fours, distinguishing them from perhaps birds that walk on just two feet that are divided into finger-like toes or talons, were considered unclean.  This would include animals such as dogs, cats, lions, bears, monkeys, etc.  If anyone touched the carcass of such an animal, he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(28) "'And he who bears the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.'"

Anyone who had occasion to carry the carcass of one of these such animals was to wash his clothes and he would be considered unclean until the evening.

(29) "'These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the weasel, the mouse, and the tortoise after its kind;'"

"Sherets", the word translated as "creeping things", usually indicated insects as it came from the root "sharats" meaning "swarm".  "Sharats" can also mean "wriggle" or "creep", and can even mean "to multiply abundantly" (as with rabbits, as they say), so "creeping things" also refers to small animals, mostly rodents that would appear to multiply and swarm.  A list of which of these kinds of creeping animals were to be considered unclean was begun, and it included the "weasel".  The original word "choled" is used only this once in scripture.  It comes from the root word "cheled" which means "to glide swiftly".  Something along the lines of a weasel was thought to be meant, although Brown-Driver-Briggs states that it was "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown".  Mice were included in this list of unclean creeping animals, as well as the "tsab", translated in the KJV as "tortoise".  Most of the other versions translated this word as "lizard", but I tend to agree with the KJV, as the original word comes from an unused root word that meant "covered" or "canopy".  That does seem to suggest a turtle or tortoise.

(30) "'And the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole.'"

Also included in the list of unclean creeping animals was the ferret.  The original word "anaqah" was only used this once in this form.  The word as a verb form meant "shrieking, crying, groaning", and Brown-Driver-Briggs stated again that it could be "an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown"; we know it was "an unclean animal".  The word translated as "chameleon" was "koach", and meant "strength, power, vigor, might"; for this reason, most translations agree this meant a much larger more powerful lizard, perhaps even the crocodile.  "Letaah", the word translated as "lizard" is only used this once, and comes from an unused root meaning "to hide", which I suppose could refer to lizards in general, but I couldn't help but note that that might actually be the word that best defined a chameleon, rather than "koach".  Once again we have a word only used once in the word translated as "snail".  "Chomet" comes from an unused root meaning "to lie low", which sounds more like a type of lizard to me, in agreement with most other versions (other than the KJV), but could also be "perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning is unknown".  Finally, the original word for "mole" is the same word for "swan" in verse 18 above, "tanshemeth".  Strong's states this is from the root "nasham" (I'll take their word for it), and means "properly a hard breather".  I suppose that might seem a proper description of an underground mole.  Once again Brown-Driver-Briggs said this could be an extinct animal or bird, since the exact meaning is unclear.  Although the meaning of most of the words in the last two verses are unclear, I think we can surmise that these were, for the most part, small swarming rodents and reptiles; and they were considered unclean.

(31) "'These are unclean to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening.'"

In a summarizing statement, the animals listed in verses 29-30 were considered the unclean animals from the ones that creep, and whoever touched their bodies when they were dead would be considered unclean until the evening.

(32) "'And upon whatever, any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be unclean, whether it be any vessel of wood, clothing, skin, or sack, whatever vessel it be, in which any work is done, it must be put in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; so it shall be cleansed.'"

If the dead body of any of the above unclean creeping things fell upon an object, that object also became unclean.  Any wooden vessel or utensil, any type of clothing, any animal skin serving as a bottle, sack, or anything else, whatever item it might be that was being used at the time, if it came in contact with the dead body of one of these creeping things, it had to be put into water, and would be considered unclean until evening.  The object would be considered cleansed after it was put into water and after the evening came.  I ought to point out that although I took the above scripture to mean anything with which the dead unclean animal came in contact, Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote that it only pertained to whatever instrument was made of wood, cloth, skin, or sack, as mentioned immediately before in the verse.  That is plausible as scripture goes on to describe vessels of other materials.

(33) "'And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.'"

If the dead body of any of the above mentioned creeping things fell into an earthenware vessel, whatever was contained within the vessel was considered unclean, and the vessel itself was to be broken.

(34) "'Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water falls shall be unclean, and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.'"

Clean meats and drinks that were otherwise lawfully able to be consumed, were to be considered unclean if they came in contact with any contaminated unclean water that had become unclean because of an unclean animal that had fallen into it.

(35) "‘And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down, for they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you.'"

Here it does indeed say that anything upon which the dead body of one of these unclean creeping things fell, would become unclean.  Even if it was an oven or range, it was to be broken down if it came in contact with the carcass of one of these animals.  These ovens or ranges would have been temporary sorts made with stones upon which pots would be placed.  I believe the idea here would be if a rat, for instance, fell upon the stones of a stove, those stones would become unclean and must be broken, and a new set of stones would have to be prepared to act as an oven or range.

(36) "‘Nevertheless a fountain or pit, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass shall be unclean.'"

An exception was granted in the case of an unclean creeping thing's carcass falling into a fountain or a well or cistern where there was plenty of water.  In the case of an abundance of water, the whole would not be considered unclean because of the dead thing falling in it.  However, the hand or vessel that touched the carcass to remove it, or any other thing that touched it, would be considered unclean.

(37) "'And if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.'"

If the unclean carcass fell upon a seed about to be sown, that seed was still considered clean.  Perhaps that was because "such seed would not be used for man's food till it had received many alterations in the earth whereby such pollution was taken away" (John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible).

(38) "‘But if water is put on the seed, and any part of their carcass falls on it, it shall be unclean to you.'"

However, if the carcass fell upon seed that had been watered, it was to be considered unclean.  Perhaps this was because a wet seed might soak up and retain the impurities of the carcass.  Maybe a wet seed indicated one that was being prepared for planting and wouldn't have been planted until it was dried and cleansed.  Any such wet seed that was contaminated by an unclean carcass would be considered unclean and plucked away, not to be dried and used.

(39) "‘And if any beast of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening.'"

If an animal that was lawful to eat died, whoever touched the carcass would be considered unclean until evening.  I find it a little amusing to what extent some of the old commentators went to explain how certain parts of the carcass were okay to touch while others were not, to explain how skins, horns, hooves, etc. were allowed to be removed and used.  I believe they were unclean when they collected these items, and there was no horrible shame in that.  It's like the unclean menstruating woman, or the person who by necessity had to remove an unclean carcass, or any carcass, for that matter.  There were times, out of necessity, that one would become unclean, and out of reverence, respect, and obedience to the Lord, they would be considered unclean for the appropriate time, but once that time had passed, would again be considered clean and able to participate in offerings, festivals, and the things of the Lord.

(40) "'And he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; he also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.'"

A clean animal that was lawful to eat that was killed to be offered as sacrifice and/or eaten posed no threat of uncleanness.  However, a lawful to eat clean animal that died of itself would be the one with the carcass that would make one unclean.  Any person who ate of this unclean carcass would have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.  Additionally, any person who carried the carcass would also have to wash his clothes and be considered unclean until evening.

(41) "‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.'"

Every creeping thing that crept low to the ground on the earth was to be considered an abomination, and expressly not to be eaten, which I suppose had not been expressly stated to this point.  We were told they were unclean, but this statement more completely tells us they were not to be eaten, and were to be considered an abomination.

(42) "‘Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has more feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination.'"

I really don't quite understand why only eight creeping creatures were mentioned before, but this does seem to answer the question about other insects and creeping things that did not seem to be mentioned in the verses above.  Whatever crawled on its belly, like snakes, worms, snails, etc.; and whatever went on all fours, certainly meant to be said of the creeping things just mentioned, which probably meant the likes of the weasel, mole, mouse, lizard, etc.; and whatever had more feet (more than four) which would include all insects, caterpillars, centipedes, etc.; these all were not to be eaten because they were considered an abomination.

(43) "‘You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them. (44) For I am the LORD your God; you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy; neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

The people were not to makes themselves unclean and abominable, and thus defiled, by eating or handling the dead bodies of these abominable creatures.  The reason for this was that their Lord God was a holy God and He wanted them to be a holy and separate people.  The people were to consecrate themselves, consciously choose between good and evil, observing the divine law and not defiling themselves with those things forbidden and considered unclean by God, in this case, the creeping things of the earth.

(45) "‘For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.'"

The Lord reminded the people that He was the Lord who was bringing them out of the land of Egypt, He being their God and they His chosen people; and for that reason they should do their best to live holy lives to abide in the holiness of their Lord.

(46) "‘This is the law of the beasts and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, (47) To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.'"

All the preceding verses in this chapter constituted the law distinguishing between the clean and unclean animals of the earth, particularly detailing the difference between those that may be eaten and those that were forbidden to be eaten.

God called His people to be a separate people, the special people of Yahweh.  These dietary laws daily reminded them of the covenant that distinguished them from the other nations of the world.  By Jesus Christ, it was revealed to us in Matthew 15:11, that it actually wasn't what went into a man's mouth that defiled him, but rather that which came out.  The apostle Paul told us in Romans 14:17 that the kingdom of God was not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  As I find true in all of the Old Testament, these dietary laws were symbolic and a prequel to and illustration of the coming Christ.  As Christians, we are free from such burdensome dietary observances.  However, the abominable foods are symbolic of abominable sins of which we should not partake, nor even touch.  When we do, as will necessarily happen because we are imperfect fallen humans, we can come back to God in the evening through Jesus Christ who covers our sins.   However, we must not abuse our freedom.  Peter said in 1 Peter 2:16 that we must not use our freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God.  The Lord has redeemed and called His people, that they may be holy, even as He is holy.  We must be separate from the world and leave the company of the ungodly, and be zealous followers of God and all good works (2 Tim 3:17 and Titus 2:14). 

The Sin and Death of Nadab and Abihu

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 10:1) And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.

In the last chapter and post, Aaron, who along with his sons had been previously solemnly consecrated to the priest's office, began the exercise of his priestly office and offered the first offerings of himself and of the people.  A fire had come from the Lord indicating His acceptance of the offerings that Aaron had offered just as had been instructed by Moses.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the two oldest sons of Aaron (Exodus 6:23), each took his own censer, a vessel in which coals of fire were put and incense upon them, which the sons indeed put, and they offered "strange fire" before the Lord, which the Lord had not commanded be done.  The original word for "strange" was "zoor" and it meant "strange, profane" and "to be estranged, as to commit adultery".  At first glance, it might seem that we don't know exactly what Nadab and Abihu did that made their fire profane, but I believe the answer is in the end of the verse that said God "had not commanded them".  While everyone else was prostrate in awe and reverence and humility, these two did not wait for the solemn instruction with which everything else had been done up to this point, but of themselves took their censers and put fire and incense and burned it.  The rituals that took place in the tabernacle were all for the Lord and per His instruction.  Deciding of themselves to offer incense was offering a strange fire not authorized by God, and forbidden, like had been commanded in Exodus 30:9 when it was said that no "strange incense" be burned on the incense altar, "strange" meaning any other incense for any other purpose other than what was commanded.  The brothers offered "strange fire" of themselves that had not been commanded by God.

(2) And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

The fire from the Lord that had just sanctified the ministry of Aaron as well pleasing to the Lord, now brought destruction to Aaron's two oldest sons because they performed a self-willed act of worship.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, pointed out that this was consistent with what was said later in the Gospel:

"For we are to God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savor of death leading to death, and to the other the savor of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?" - 2 Corinthians 2:15-16

The very same salvation Gospel of Christ means life to them who accept and are saved by it, and death to those who reject it.  This fire that came from the Lord devoured Nadab and Abihu, meaning devoured their lives, and they died right there before the Lord.  They were not completely devoured to non-existence as a later verse will show.

(3) Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'I will be sanctified in those who come near Me, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

Moses spoke immediately to Aaron repeating the words of the Lord.  Although this exact quote of the Lord is not found in scripture, there is a hint of it in Exodus 19:22 when the Lord said that the priests who came near to Him must be sanctified "lest the LORD break forth upon them".  The Lord is a holy God who must be approached with reverence and seriousness and His presence is not to be entered into vainly or lightly.  Aaron held his peace meaning he acknowledged and submitted to God's righteous justice and did not murmur against His Lord.

(4) And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.”

Here is where we see that the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were not totally devoured to nothingness because Moses called upon Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, who was the uncle of Aaron, to carry Nadab and Abihu out of the camp.

(5) So they went near and carried them in their coats out of the camp as Moses had said.

They did as Moses said and carried the bodies in their coats out of the camp.  It's interesting to note that although fire came out and killed them, perhaps as if by a flash of lightning, neither their bodies nor their clothes were burned up.

(6) And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, “Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people; but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD has kindled."

Moses told Aaron and Aaron's two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, that they were not to uncover their heads or rent their clothes, which were signs of grief and mourning.  As a matter of fact, they were strictly forbidden to do it or else they would die and God's wrath would come upon all the people.  Lamenting so demonstrably for them would have sent the message that even though their family members' actions were so heinous and provoking to God, and so deserving of the punishment He inflicted on them, their mourning might be seen as justifying the crimes and accusing God of unjust severity.  In addition, they were not to be diverted from or disturbed in their present service to their Lord.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, put it this way, "By this they must make it to appear that they had a greater value and affection for their God and their work than for the best friend they had in the world."  However, as a whole, they and the whole house of Israel, should bemoan the incident, not so much for the death of their brethren, but for the irreverence to the Lord that had occurred, and in respect and recognition of the Lord's sovereign and powerful judgment, and for His wrath that could just as easily consume all of them as they were sinners, as well.

(7) "And you shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest you die, for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you.” And they did according to the word of Moses.

Additionally, Moses told Aaron and his sons that they were not to go outside the door of the tabernacle as they were consecrated with oil to the priest's office, the oil being the symbol of the Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Life; and they were to be completely attentive to their priestly affairs dedicated to their Lord preferring service to Him over any mourning or funeral customs.  They did just as Moses told them to do.

(8) And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, (9) “Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations,"

The Lord now spoke directly to Aaron, rather than through Moses.  He told him that neither he nor his sons were to drink wine or any strong drink when they went into the tabernacle.  It is believed by many Bible commentators that the reason for this prohibition at this time might be because Nadab and Abihu were drunk when they offered strange fire.  That is certainly possible.  They had feasted that day and probably drank freely in celebration of their first day into their priesthood.  Service in the priest's office called for clear heads and clean hearts in the administration of sacred things.  Even if the brothers had not been drunk, God was pointing out to Aaron that this was a most sacred service they were undertaking and it was to be administered with reverence and respect and wine and strong drink were prohibited under the penalty of death, and as a statute forever.  Note the prohibition seems to just apply to when they were going into the tabernacle; they were permitted to drink wine at other times.

(10) "And that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean, (11) And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses.”

The Lord continued speaking to Aaron giving him the reason for the prohibition, that the priests' minds be clear and their understanding and judgment correct, that they be able to distinguish between holy and unholy (which obviously Nadab and Abihu were not able to do), and clean and unclean, and that they be able to properly teach the children of Israel all the statutes that God had passed to Moses to pass to them.

(12) And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, “Take the grain offering that remains of the offerings made by fire to the LORD, and eat it without leaven beside the altar, for it is most holy. (13) And you shall eat it in the holy place, because it is your due and your sons’ due, of the sacrifices made by fire to the LORD; for so I have been commanded."

Moses now spoke to Aaron and his remaining two sons, and told them to take the grain offering that remained of the offerings made by fire to the Lord (all but the handful that was burnt), and instructed them to eat it without leaven beside the altar, here called the holy place, because that part of the grain offering that remained for the priests was most holy.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed out that this was not the previously designated "holy place" next to the "holiest of holies" within the tabernacle, but was a so-called holy place within the court of the tabernacle next to the altar at the door of the tabernacle.  This part of the grain offering was for Aaron and his sons only, not for any other family, etc., and was to be eaten nowhere else but in the tabernacle.  Moses lets Aaron and his sons know that this was the will of God as He had commanded him.

(14) "And the wave breast and heave shoulder you shall eat in a clean place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are your due and your sons’ due, which are given from the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel."

Moses continued speaking to Aaron and his sons, telling them that the breast that was waved and the shoulder that was heaved was provided to them and their families and was to be eaten in a clean place, but not necessarily a holy place.

(15) "The heave shoulder and the wave breast they shall bring with the offerings of fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be yours and your sons’ with you, by a statute forever, as the LORD has commanded.”

Moses continued speaking to Aaron and his sons, continuing the thought from the previous verse that these items were given from the sacrifices of peace offerings brought by the children of Israel with the offerings of fat, and the breast and the shoulder were to be Aaron's and his sons' portion by an everlasting statute commanded by the Lord.

(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying, (17) “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?"

Leviticus 9:15 told of Aaron taking the goat, the sin offering for the people, killing it, and offering it for sin.  Verse 16 stated he then brought the burnt offering.  These were two different offerings as stated in Leviticus 9:3--a kid of the goats for a sin offering and a calf and a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering.  Moses now looked for the goat of the sin offering and saw that it was burnt, and he was angry with Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar.  The flesh of this goat was not to be burnt, but to be eaten by the priests in the holy place, according to Leviticus 6:25-26:  “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the LORD. It is most holy. The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting.'"  Moses demanded to know why the sons had not eaten the sin offering in a holy place; it was most holy and to be eaten by the priests to bear the iniquity of the people.  In this way, they bore the sins of the people as their own, and then made atonement for them.  In this, they were symbolic types of Christ, who took the people's sins upon Him and bore them in His own body on the cross, and made full satisfaction and atonement for them.  Seeing that the eating of the sin offering of the people was of so great importance, the neglect of it by the priests angered Moses.  You would think that just after witnessing what happened to their brothers, they would have been more carefully attentive to the laws of God.

(18) "Behold, the blood of it was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded.”

Moses referred back to the instructions given in Leviticus 6:30, which were that if any blood of the sin offering had been brought into the tabernacle, then the sin offering was not to be eaten, but was to be burnt in the fire.  However, in this case, he said that no blood of the sin offering was brought inside the holy place, therefore they were to have eaten it in a holy place, as he had previously told them.

(19) And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this day they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and such things have befallen me; and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?”

Moses had directed his anger toward Eleazar and Ithamar, but it was Aaron who answered.  Perhaps what they did was by Aaron's direction, and therefore he apologized for it.  In essence what he said was that on this very day when they had sacrificed sin and burnt offerings to the Lord, this great calamity had befallen him; and would it have been pleasing to the Lord that those so humbled and distressed by the sin of their family members and God's divine judgment, would have chosen to feast on the most holy flesh of the sin offering?

(20) And when Moses heard that, he was content.

Moses was content with Aaron's answer.  God judges the heart of man rather than his actions.  In verse 3 above, Aaron had held his peace and not openly and audibly mourned for his sons.  In his excuse to Moses, he did not say that it was in an act of mourning (choosing to mourn for his sons over the law of God) that he chose not to feast on the sin offering, but rather wondered aloud if it would have been acceptable to the Lord to be done in his present sorrowful spirit.  Indeed, God had provided in other places that what could not be eaten was to be burnt.  Aaron's unfitness for duty, natural and not sinful, was given a great allowance and God had mercy on him and his remaining sons.  It appeared that Aaron did aim to be acceptable to the Lord, and this was most surely a case of the spirit being willing, but the flesh was weak.  God judged Aaron's heart, and we being unable to see within a person's heart, should learn to be careful not to judge every little action of another person.  We must learn to forgive and show mercy just as we are forgiven and shown mercy by our Lord.

The First Offerings of Aaron Consumed by Fire from the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 9:1) And it came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel.

In the last post, Aaron and his sons had just finished seven days of their priestly consecration.  On the eighth day Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel together.

(2) And he said to Aaron, “Take for yourself a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD."

Moses told Aaron to take for himself the animals which would be sacrifices for Aaron himself, to make atonement for his own sin.  He was to take a young calf for a sin offering, which I have read Jewish writers have suggested was to remind him of the matter of the golden calf.  He was also to take a ram for a burnt offering, both animals without blemish.

(3) “And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a kid of the goats for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering, (4) Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for today the LORD will appear to you.’”

Moses instructed Aaron, now as high priest, to speak to the children of Israel, telling them to take a goat kid for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year and without blemish, for a burnt offering.  Additionally, they were to take a bull and a ram for peace offerings and a grain offering mixed with oil.  Moses told Aaron that the Lord would appear to them that day.

(5) And they brought what Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation; and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD.

Aaron and his sons and all the children of Israel brought the sacrifices Moses had instructed them to bring to the tabernacle.  "All the congregation", which may mean the elders who had been called in verse 1 as representatives of all the congregation, drew near and stood before the Lord, before the tabernacle where God dwelt.

(6) And Moses said, “This is the thing which the LORD commanded you to do, and the glory of the LORD will appear to you.”

Moses told the people that what they had done in bringing the animals as he had commanded (verse 5) was actually what the Lord had commanded they do.  Additionally, he told them the glory of the Lord would appear to them.

(7) And Moses said to Aaron, “Go to the altar, offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them, as the LORD commanded.”

A lot of good stuff is packed into this verse!  First Moses told Aaron to go to the altar and offer his own sin offering and burnt offering to make atonement for himself, and then for the people.  A sinful man could not make atonement for another until he was pure from sin; that was a character only to be found in Christ, our great High Priest, the completely sinless one who could atone for and take away the sins of the people.  It was pointed out by most all the old commentaries I read that this showed the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood that the high priest was obliged to make an expiation for his own sins before he could make one for the sins of the people.  This was pointed out in Hebrews 7:27 when the apostle said that Jesus Christ "who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself."  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, suggested that Aaron's sin offering maybe wasn't so much a sacrifice for his own actual sins as it was a general acknowledgment of his sinful nature "and of his future duty to offer for his own sins and those of the people".  I can see that as the scripture stated that Aaron was to offer his own sin offering and burnt offering and make atonement for himself "and for the people".

One more point in only the first part of this scripture was also made by Albert Barnes.  He pointed out that Aaron was not required to make a peace offering for himself.  He suggested it was enough that he should participate in the peace offerings of the consecration (Lev. 8:31), and in the two peace offerings about to be sacrificed for the people.  After offering his own offerings, the second part of the verse states Aaron was to offer the offering of the people to make atonement for them.  All this was as the Lord commanded.

(8) Aaron therefore went to the altar and killed the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself.

Aaron did as Moses told him and went to the altar, and he himself killed the calf for his own sin offering.

(9) And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him; and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it on the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the altar.

Aaron's sons probably held the basins that collected the blood from the calf Aaron killed, and they brought the basins to Aaron.  Aaron then dipped his finger in the blood, put it on the horns of the altar, and then poured out the blood at the base of the altar.  This was just as Moses had done at his consecration in Leviticus 8:15.

(10) But the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering he burned on the altar, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Evidently, there is some controversy over this scripture because of what is said in a future verse, but for now with the information that is given, I will take this verse at face value, and say that Aaron took the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering calf and burned it on the altar as the Lord had told Moses he was to do.

(11) And the flesh and the hide he burned with fire outside the camp.

Aaron took the flesh and the skin of the sacrifice and burned it outside the camp.  This seems consistent with what the Lord had told Moses in Leviticus chapter 4 (verses 3 through 12) was to be done by an anointed priest who sinned.  This was Aaron's sin offering.

(12) And he killed the burnt offering; and Aaron’s sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar.

Next Aaron killed the ram that he had brought for a burnt offering (verse 2 above).  His sons brought him the blood that had probably been collected in basins when he killed the ram, and he sprinkled it all around on the altar.

(13) And they presented the burnt offering to him, with its pieces and head, and he burned them on the altar.

This seems consistent with what Moses did with the ram of the burnt offering in Leviticus 8:20, except that Aaron's sons were assisting him and they were the ones who handed Aaron the pieces of the ram after it had been cut up, and he then burned them on the altar.

(14)  And he washed the inwards and the legs, and burned them on the burnt offering on the altar.

Aaron washed the inwards and the legs of the ram and burned them on the altar, again consistent with what Moses had done in Leviticus 8:21.

(15) And he brought the people's offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and killed it and offered it for sin, like the first one.

Then Aaron brought the people's offering as described in verse 3 above, and took the goat which was the people's sin offering, and killed it as he had done with his own sin offering.

(16) And he brought the burnt offering and offered it according to the prescribed manner.

Next Aaron brought the people's burnt offering, a calf and a lamb of the first year (verse 3 above), and offered that offering in the prescribed manner, as commanded in other instances regarding a burnt sacrifice (verses 12-14 above, Lev. 1:3-9, Lev. 8:18-21).

(17) And he brought the grain offering, took a handful of it, and burned it on the altar, besides the burnt sacrifice of the morning.

Aaron then took the grain offering mixed with oil from verse 4 above, took a handful, and burned it on the altar.  This was to be offered "besides the burnt sacrifice of the morning", which was daily offered first (Exodus 29:42).

(18) He also killed the bull and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people; and Aaron's sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar,

Aaron also killed the bull and the ram which were for the people's peace offerings (verse 4 above), and his sons presented to him the blood from those animals that was probably collected in vessels while they were being killed.  Aaron sprinkled the blood all around on the altar.

(19) And the fat of the bull and the ram, the rump, what covers the inwards, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver; (20) And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burned the fat on the altar; (21) And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD, as Moses commanded.

The fat of the bull and the ram, including the kidneys, the caul above the liver, and the fat tail of the ram, they put upon the breasts of the animals.  Aaron burned the fat on the altar after having waved it upon the breasts.  The breasts and the right shoulders of the bull and the ram Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, just as Moses had instructed him to do.

(22) And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, the burnt offering, and peace offerings.

After offering the sacrifices for he himself and for the people, Aaron turned toward the people and lifted up his hand or hands toward them and blessed them.  He then came down from the altar.

(23) And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out and blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

Then Moses and Aaron both went into the tabernacle and they came out and both blessed the people; Aaron having already blessed them once, now blessed them along with Moses.  The glory of the Lord, some visible sign of His glory, appeared to all the people, just as Moses had told them would happen in verse 6 above.

(24) And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar; when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

A fire came out from before the Lord, probably from that visible sign of His glory, and immediately consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar.  When all the people saw it, they shouted in joy and probably awe, and fell on their faces in reverence and humility.   This scripture is the one that caused controversy and seemed to contradict verse 10 (and again in verses 13-20), where it was said that Aaron burned "the fat, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering" on the altar, and now scripture said that fire came from the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar.  There was even conjecture that Moses and Aaron remained in the tabernacle until the evening sacrifice, of which there is no mention.  I see no problem with the way it was written.  As activity continued after verse 10, and nothing was said to the effect of the offering being totally consumed before anything else happened, everything seems perfectly in order.  Aaron placed the things on the altar and began burning them, and moved on.  When the Lord's fire came down, it totally consumed the offerings on the altar, a manifest token of God's acceptance of their service and sacrifice.  Regardless of what was on the altar and what time it occurred, it was totally apparent to the people that God's fire consumed their offerings, indicating His pleasure and acceptance of them.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, put it this way, "It signified the turning away of God's wrath from them. God's wrath is a consuming fire; this fire might justly have fastened upon the people, and consumed them for their sins; but its fastening upon the sacrifice, and consuming that, signified God's acceptance of that as an atonement for the sinner."

I believe I touched on the fact before that Jewish tradition held that the sacred fire of the altar originated in this divine act, and that it was afterward preserved on the altar of the tabernacle (Lev. 6:13):  "The fire shall ever be burning on the altar; it shall never go out."  However, scripture shows that fire was started in a natural way, unless you believe what some commentators try to make a case for, that the sacrifices from verses 10 through 20 were only placed in order on the altar, and not actually burned.  I see no reason not to take scripture at its face value.  Aaron was doing exactly what had been commanded he do, and the fire from the Lord totally consumed whatever was on the altar at the time, and from that time on, that fire from heaven was never allowed to go out.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, adds that it (the fire) "therefore was carried in a peculiar vessel in their journeys in the wilderness".  I suppose I will learn more about that when that occurs in scripture.

Matthew Henry went as far to say that the fire took possession of the altar went it came out from the Lord and consumed what was on the altar.  This fire represented the Spirit of God which would dwell with the people and be carefully preserved and not allowed to go out.  It was a picture of the coming Spirit of fire that descended on the apostles in Acts 2:3, and that which was promised by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11, when he said the One coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.  Matthew Henry wrote of the descent of holy fire into our souls "to kindle in them pious and devout affections towards God".  Additionally, as a fire, it "burns up the flesh and the lusts of it".

Consecration of Aaron and His Sons to the Priest's Office

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 8:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, the anointing oil, a bull for the sin offering, two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread; (3) And gather all the congregation together at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

In the last post, God had concluded His instructions to Moses about how to perform various offerings.  He now turned to the subject of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priest's office.  Moses was to take Aaron and his sons, the garments for the priesthood that had formerly been ordered and made, the anointing oil that likewise had been ordered and now made, a bullock for the sin offering, two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread, exactly as had been ordered back in Exodus 29:1-3.  He was to gather the whole body of people to the door of the tabernacle, which would have meant the whole courtyard of the tabernacle, as the number of people would have been so large.  More than likely, just the heads of tribes and elders were gathered, representing all the people, for the number would have been too large to have all the people in the court of the tabernacle.

(4) And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Moses did exactly as the Lord had instructed him.  He gathered the people to the door of the tabernacle, as well as brought Aaron and his sons, the priestly garments, the anointing oil, bull, rams, and bread.

(5) And Moses said to the congregation, “This is what the LORD commanded to be done.”

Having convened them, Moses explained the reason for them being called together was not done of himself, but by divine direction of the Lord.  This act of bringing them together and what was to follow with regard to the consecration of Aaron and his sons to be priests, was commanded by the Lord.

(6) And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water.

First Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the laver which was in the court of the tabernacle and washed them with water, making clean those who would bear the vessels of the Lord, but no doubt signifying only those with clean hands and clean hearts should minister in the priest's office in the house of God.

(7) And he put on him the coat, girded him with the belt, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and with it bound the ephod on him.

All these garments were described in Exodus 28 when God gave instructions on how to make them.  The "him" referred to here would be Aaron, as high priest; his sons were described as being clothed in a later verse.  Moses now put these garments on Aaron--the embroidered coat of fine linen; the needlework belt or sash; the blue robe; the ephod made of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, with shoulder pieces with onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes; and the interwoven sash of the ephod with which Moses bound the ephod on Aaron.

(8) And he put the breastplate on him; also he put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastplate.

Moses put on Aaron the breastplate of judgment with the twelve stones representing the twelve tribes, and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim, which were some sort of lots or dice in which the Lord would make known His will through them.

(9) And he put the turban on his head; also on the turban, on its front, he put the golden plate, the holy crown, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

As the Lord had commanded Moses, he put the turban on Aaron's head, and placed on it the golden plate with the engraved words, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD", referred to here as a holy crown.

(10) And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and sanctified them. (11) And he sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its vessels, and the laver and its base, to sanctify them.

 Moses took the anointing oil that had been made by Bezaleel and ordered by God in verse 2 to be brought to the tabernacle, and he anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, thereby sanctifying it.  He sprinkled the altar of burnt offering with the anointing oil seven times, and also anointed all its utensils and vessels, and also the wash basin and its base.

(12) And he poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Moses poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him with it, signifying that he was set apart and devoted to the sacred office of the priesthood.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, wrote that this oil was probably poured plentifully on Aaron's head, whereas other persons and things were only sprinkled.  He referred to Psalm 133:2:  "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down on the beard, Aaron's beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments."

(13) And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats on them, girded them with sashes, and put hats on them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Moses then brought forth Aaron's sons and clothed them in the garments made for them--coats, sashes, and caps--just as the Lord had commanded he do.

(14) And he brought the bullock for the sin offering; and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull for the sin offering.

Moses brought forth the bull for the sin offering.  Exodus 29:35-36 told us that a bull was to be offered every day for seven days at this consecration, but only the first day is being described here.  Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull, acknowledging their guilt and transferring it to the bull, recognizing that they deserved to die as that bull would, which was the sacrifice for their sin and whose blood was used to purify and sanctify the altar, at which they, sinful men, were to serve.

(15) And he killed it; and Moses took the blood and put it upon the horns of the altar all around with his finger and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.

Moses killed the bull and dipped some of its blood with his finger and put it on the four horns on the four corners of the altar all around.  With that, he ceremonially purified the altar.  He poured the rest of the blood out at the base of the altar, sanctifying it, setting it apart for sacred use, that it might be fit to have sacrifices offered on it to make atonement and reconciliation for sins.

(16) And he took all the fat that was on the inwards, the caul above the liver, the two kidneys and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar.

Moses took the fat that had previously been prescribed and commanded by the Lord to be removed and burned on the altar (Exodus 29:13), and he did just as the Lord had commanded.

(17) But the bull, its hide, its flesh, and its dung, he burned with fire outside the camp, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

What remained of the bull, with its flesh, skin, and dung, Moses took outside the camp and burned, just as the Lord had commanded he do in Exodus 29:14.

(18) And he brought the ram for the burnt offering; and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram.

Next Moses brought the ram for the burnt offering, one of the two rams he was told by the Lord to bring with him in verse 2 above.  Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram, making themselves one with the sacrifice, which was to be sent up as a burnt sacrifice for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire pleasing and acceptable to the Lord.

(19) And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood all around on the altar. (20) And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burned the head, the pieces, and the fat. (21) And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar; it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Moses killed the ram and sprinkled its blood all around on the altar.  He cut the ram in pieces, cutting off its head, and probably quartering it.  He washed the inwards and the legs, and burned the whole ram--the head, the pieces, and the fat--on the altar.  It was a burnt sacrifice, that sweet pleasing and acceptable offering to the Lord.

(22) And he brought the other ram, the ram of consecration; and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram.

Moses brought forth the second ram, the ram of consecration.  The original word for "consecration" was "millu", meaning "a fulfilling"; this offering was “the sacrifice of completion or fulfilling”.  Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram.

(23) And Moses killed it, and he took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. (24) And he brought Aaron's sons, and Moses put some of the blood on the tips of their right ears, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet; and Moses sprinkled the blood all around on the altar.

Moses killed the second ram.  He took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aaron's right ear, on his right thumb, and on his right big toe.  He then brought forth Aaron's sons and put some of the blood on the tips of their right ears, their right thumbs, and their right big toes.  This was done exactly as commanded by God in Exodus 29.  Putting the blood on these particular prescribed places was symbolic of the priests' readiness to hear and obey the word of God, to perform with their hands the specific duties of the priest's office, and to walk with their feet in the way of holiness.  Moses then sprinkled the blood all around on the altar.

(25) And he took the fat and the fat tail, all the fat that was on the inwards, the caul above the liver, the two kidneys and their fat, and the right shoulder; (26) And out of the basket of unleavened bread that was before the LORD, he took one unleavened cake, a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat and on the right shoulder; (27) And he put them all in Aaron’s hands and in his sons’ hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD.

Moses took the fat of the ram of consecration and its right shoulder, and from the basket of unleavened bread he had brought with them in verses 2-4 above, he took one unleavened cake, a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat and on the right shoulder.  He then put all these things into Aaron's and his sons' hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord.  Note that scripture didn't change pronouns to indicate that after Moses put these things into Aaron's and his sons' hands, that they waved them, as suggested by some newer Bible translations, such as NIV.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, wrote that Moses "put the whole first upon the hands of Aaron and in succession upon the hands of his sons: in each case, according to Jewish tradition, he put his own hands under the hands of the priest, moving them backwards and forwards, so as to wave the mass to and fro."  Mr. Barnes went on to reflect:  "In this remarkable ceremony the gifts of the people appear to have been made over to the priests, as if in trust, for the service of the altar. The articles were presented to Yahweh and solemnly waved in the hands of the priests, but not by their own act and deed. The mediator of the Law, who was expressly commissioned on this occasion, was the agent in the process."

(28) And Moses took them from their hands and burned them on the altar on the burnt offering; they were consecrations for a sweet aroma; it is an offering made by fire to the LORD.

Moses then took the items from the hands of Aaron and his sons and burned them on the burnt offering of the other ram.  They were consecrations, a "fulfilling", acceptable and pleasing to the Lord.

(29) And Moses took the breast and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD; it was Moses’ part of the ram of consecration, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

In Exodus 29:26 God had told Moses to take "the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be your part."  Moses did as the Lord had commanded and waved the breast for a wave offering before the Lord.  This breast was waved with Moses's own hands as it was to be his.

(30) And Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he sanctified Aaron, his garments, his sons, and the garments of his sons with him.

It appears that the oil and the blood were mixed and then sprinkled on Aaron and his sons and on their garments, and thus, they and their garments were sanctified.

(31) And Moses said to Aaron and his sons, “Boil the flesh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and eat it there with the bread that is in the basket of consecration offerings, as I commanded, saying, ‘Aaron and his sons shall eat it.’"

Moses then told Aaron and his sons to take the remaining flesh of the ram of consecration, which was all but the fat, the shoulder, and the breast, and boil it at the door of the tabernacle.  They were then to eat it with the bread in the basket of consecration offerings (less the bread from verse 26 that had been waved and burned).  This was just as the Lord had commanded Moses in Exodus 29:32:  "And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

(32) "And that which remains of the flesh and of the bread you shall burn with fire."

That which remained until the next morning of the flesh and the bread could not be eaten by Aaron and his sons, but must be burned with fire so that it would not be corrupted or used for common or superstitious purposes.

(33) “And you shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation for seven days, until the days of your consecration are ended; for seven days he shall consecrate you."

The commentaries I have read are pretty much in agreement that this probably meant they were not to go away from the door of the tabernacle, or out of the court of the tabernacle of the congregation for seven days, until the time of their consecration was fulfilled.  "For seven days he shall consecrate you"--Moses speaks of himself in the third person from the words used by the Lord in Exodus 29:35:  "And thus you shall do to Aaron and his sons, according to all that I have commanded you; seven days you shall consecrate them."

(34) “As he has done this day, so the LORD has commanded to do, to make an atonement for you. (35) Therefore you shall abide at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation day and night seven days, and keep the charge of the LORD, so that you not die; for so I am commanded.”

As was done that first day, the Lord had commanded they repeat every day until the seven days were ended, to make atonement for Aaron and his sons.  They were to abide within the door or court of the tabernacle day and night for seven days, and keep the charge of the Lord, that is, what was charged upon them to attend to during the seven days of their consecration.  This they were to do so that they would not die, as to neglect their charge would be to betray the trust of the Lord and would be considered a direct insult to Him. 

(36) So Aaron and his sons did all the things that the LORD had commanded by the hand of Moses.

Aaron and his sons did all the things that the Lord had commanded to Moses in chapter 29 of Exodus.  This chapter showed the exact fulfillment of the commands delivered to Moses, completely preparing Aaron and his sons to fill the important office of the priests.  Commentators have pointed out that this was one of the few historical portions of the Book of Leviticus.  Most of the Levitical Book dealt with the laws and ordinances of the Levitical priesthood, as it was called in Hebrews 7:11.  The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge put it this way:  "The institution of the high priesthood typified Jesus, the Great High Priest, called and prepared of God, who hath an unchangeable priesthood, and is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him."

Laws of Various Offerings to the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 6:8) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (9) “Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.'"

The Lord spoke to Moses, turning to a new subject.  He told him to command Aaron and his sons, because they were the appointed priests, about the law of the burnt offering.  This was the continual burnt offering spoken of in Exodus 29:38 in the Consecration of the Priests.  It was called a burnt offering because of the burning on the altar all night long.  It was not a burnt sacrifice put on the altar all at once to be burned up at once.  We can reasonably assume that the priest had to sit up the whole night slowly feeding the fire with portions of the offering, or with wood as in verse 12 below, until the time in the morning when that sacrifice was then offered.  It probably wouldn't have been as necessary to slowly feed the fire during the day because there may have been a constant succession of sacrifices in the day.  The biggest danger of the fire going out was during the night when no other offerings were made, and that is why only that time is stressed here.

(10) "'And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers he shall put on his flesh, and take up the ashes of the burnt offering which the fire has consumed on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.'"

The priest was to put on his linen garment.  The original word translated as "garment" was "mad", and that more completely included "extent, height, measure", implying that this particular garment was exactly the measure of his body and fit closely to his body as a shirt might.  He was also to put linen trousers "on his flesh", to cover his nakedness as said in Exodus 28:42.  He was to take care of the ashes of the eternal burnt offering by taking them up and putting them beside the altar.

(11) "'And he shall take off his garments, put on other garments, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place.'"

The priest was then to take off the close-fitting garments and was to put on other garments, possibly garments particularly for this type of dirtier work.  He was then to carry the ashes outside the camp, but as the ashes of holy things, they were to be placed in a clean place, that is, one that was free from dung, dead carcasses, or any unclean things.

(12) "‘And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it; it shall not be put out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order on it; and he shall burn on it the fat of the peace offerings. (13) The fire shall ever be burning on the altar; it shall never go out.'"

Although the ashes were removed from the altar, the fire was to be kept burning; it was not to be put out.  The priest was to burn wood on the altar every morning to keep the fire going until time to place the burnt offering on it.  From Leviticus 3:3-5, we learned that the fat of the peace offering was the fat that covered the inwards of the sacrificial animal, its two kidneys and the fat on them, and the caul above the liver, and this was to be burned "on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is on the wood that is on the fire" (Lev. 3:3).  I believe burning the peace offering "upon the burnt sacrifice" referred to burning it on this continual burnt offering that was never allowed to go out.

(14) "'And this is the law of the grain offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.'"

The Lord now began to give Moses instructions for grain offerings, which he had covered in Leviticus 2, but that had more to do with instructions for how the people were to offer their sacrifices, and this more about instructions for the priests.  The grain offering, having been brought to the priests, was to be offered to the Lord by the priests at the altar.

(15) "'And he shall take of it his handful of the flour of the grain offering, and its oil, and all the frankincense which is on the grain offering, and shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma, as a memorial to the LORD.'"

In Leviticus 2:1, we were told that the grain offering was to be of fine flour, with oil poured on it, and frankincense on it.  The priest was to take a handful of the offering and was to burn it on the altar as a memorial of the entire offering to the Lord, and as a sweet aroma to the Lord, acceptable to Him as a suitable sacrifice for atonement of sin.

(16) "‘And the remainder of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; with unleavened bread it shall be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of meeting they shall eat it.'"

The remainder of the offering was given to Aaron and his sons, the priests, to eat.  In this way, God provided for His ministers.  The flour was to be eaten unleavened, and it was to be eaten within the holy place in the court of the tabernacle.  The very eating of it was a sacred rite, by which they were to honor God, and it was done with a holy reverence and confined to the holy place.

(17) "‘It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering and as the trespass offering.'"

The remainder of the fine flour offering that was given to the priests was not afterward to be baked with leaven either.  The Lord gave this portion of His offerings to the priests for their maintenance.  But as His offering, it was most holy and had to be treated as such, as with the sin offering and trespass offering.

(18) "‘All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations concerning the offerings made by fire to the LORD; everyone who touches them must be holy.’”

Only the males among the children of Aaron were to eat this portion, probably because it was to be eaten in the holy place, and only the males were priests who were allowed to eat it there.  It was to be a statute forever concerning the offerings made by fire to the Lord, that is, until the Messiah would come as the ultimate and true offering, and the bread He gave was His flesh, and he that eats of it shall not die, but live forever (John 6:27).  None should touch or eat the offerings, but consecrated persons--priests or their sons.

(19) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (20) “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they shall offer to the LORD in the day when he is anointed, one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a daily grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it at night."

The Lord then proceeded to instruct Moses on the offering Aaron was to give on the day that he was anointed high priest.  I believe "and his sons" refers to the time at which each in succession was anointed high priest.  That seems to be the general consensus of most of the commentaries that I usually study.  He was to offer one tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which was an omer.  Exactly what that was seems to vary among "experts", but it was generally understood to mean what a person could eat in one day.  The high priest was to offer this daily, from the day he was anointed for as long as he lived or was in the priest's office.  He offered half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.

(21) “It shall be made in a pan with oil, and when it is baked, you shall bring it in; and the baked pieces of the grain offering you shall offer for a sweet aroma to the LORD."

The flour was to be baked in a pan with oil, and once baked, was brought in as an offering.  It was then cut or torn in pieces which were offered for a pleasing and acceptable offering to the Lord.

(22) "And the priest of his sons who is anointed in his place shall offer it; it is a statute forever to the LORD; it shall be wholly burned."

The anointed high priest and the son that succeeded him should forever offer this daily sacrifice until the Messiah came who was the ultimate and true sacrifice.  The baked flour offering was to be wholly burned in contrast to the common grain offering where only a handful was burned and the rest was the priest's.

(23) “For every grain offering for the priest shall be wholly burned; it shall not be eaten."

Every grain offering that the high priest himself offered was wholly the Lord's and was to be entirely burned, and was not to be eaten by the priest or anyone.

(24) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (25) “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the LORD; it is most holy.'"

The Lord continued instructing Moses on what to tell Aaron and his sons.  He said the law of the sin offering as it pertained to the priests was that it was to be killed in the same place where the burnt offerings were killed, that is, the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).  I have read that some think this typified the crucifying of Christ on mount Calvary, which was on the north side of Jerusalem.  This was a most holy offering to the Lord, sacred and accepted by Him.

(26) "‘The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it; in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.'"

The priest who offered the sin offering for the people (or person) was to eat it in the holy place within the court of the tabernacle.  It is said later in scripture that the priest, by eating the sin offering of the people, was considered as bearing their sin, removing it from them, and making atonement for it (Lev. 10:17), as a type of Christ who bore the sins of His people in His own body on the cross.

(27) "'Whatever touches its flesh must be holy; and when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled in the holy place.'"

Whatever touched the flesh of the offering, referred primarily to whomever touched it who must be holy.  None but holy persons, those devoted to holy services, the priests and their sons, might touch and eat of the flesh of the sin offering.  It also referred to the blood of the sacrifice, that if was sprinkled on and therefore touched his garment, was to be washed out with reverence to the blood sacrifice, as typical of the precious blood of Christ, within the holy place, never taken out and washed elsewhere.

(28) "‘But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water.'"

The vessel in which the flesh of the sin offering was boiled must be broken if it was an earthen one, as porous unglazed pottery would absorb some of the juices of the meat.  However, if it was a bronze vessel, that being more valuable and also not porous, that vessel was to be thoroughly scoured and rinsed.

(29) "'All the males among the priests shall eat it; it is most holy.'"

As with the grain offering in verse 18, only the males among Aaron and his sons, the priests, were to eat of the sin offering.  Again this was a most holy offering to the Lord, sacred and accepted by Him.

(30) "'And no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire.'"

Every offering, including every sin offering, was killed in the court of the tabernacle on the north side of the altar, and the blood of some of them, as on the day of atonement, was carried within the veil and sprinkled on the mercy seat for reconciling the holy place and making atonement for it.  The flesh of those such sin offerings was not be eaten by the priests (though the others might), but was to be burned in the fire outside the camp (Lev. 4:12, Lev. 16:27).

(Leviticus 7:1) "‘Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering; it is most holy.'"

As the Lord was still speaking to Aaron and his sons through Moses, I consider chapter 7 to be a continuation of the instructions for the priests concerning the sacrifices.  He now began the topic of the trespass offering, which was also most holy, wholly devoted for sacred use.

(2) "‘In the place where they kill the burnt offering they shall kill the trespass offering; and its blood he shall sprinkle all around on the altar.'"

The trespass offering, as was the sin offering, was to be killed in the place where they killed burnt offerings, which was on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).  The priest was to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice all around on the altar.

(3) "‘And he shall offer from it all its fat; the fat tail and the fat that covers the inwards, (4) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he remove. (5) And the priest shall burn them on the altar as an offering made by fire to the LORD; it is a trespass offering.'"

All the fat was to be offered, which was considered to be the fat tail (the tails of the eastern sheep were said to be very large and fat, alone weighing 15 pounds or more); and all the fat on the "inwards", the two kidneys and their fat, and the caul above the liver, basically, the "gut" or middle section of the animal.   The priest was to burn the fat on the altar as an offering to the Lord.  It was a trespass offering to make atonement for a trespass committed.

(6) "‘Every male among the priests shall eat it; it shall be eaten in the holy place; it is most holy.'"

That is, every male among the priests could eat of the flesh of the trespass offering, after the fat had been taken off and burned on the altar.  It was considered most holy and only to be eaten by those sanctified people devoted to holy services, and it could only be eaten in the holy place, not taken out and carried home to be eaten by their family or anyone else.

(7) "'As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.'"

The same law applied to the sin offering and the trespass offering; that is, the priest who took the offering and made atonement for the offerer was to have what remained after what was burnt on the altar.  It was the priest's, but no doubt it was his to offer to his sons or to other priests on duty, as scripture said "every male among the priests shall eat it", which more precisely meant "may" eat it if offered by the priest making the atonement.

(8) "‘And the priest who offers any man’s burnt offering, that priest shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered.'"

In a burnt offering where the flesh was wholly burnt, and nothing remained but the skin, the priest offering the burnt offering was to have the skin for himself.  What is meant here is the priest offering someone else's burnt offering.  In Leviticus 4:11, when the priest offered for his own sin the skin was also to be burned.

(9) "'And all the grain offering that is baked in the oven and all that is prepared in the fryingpan and in the pan, shall be the priest's who offers it.'"

All the grain offerings, prepared one way or another, baked in the oven or in a pan or pan-fried, were to be the priest's who offered it, except for the portion burned as an offering to the Lord (Lev. 2:9).

(10) "'And every grain offering, mingled with oil or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as the other.'"

In verse 9 the grain offering was prepared and hot and to be presently eaten by the priest offering it.  However, if the grain was offered as dry flour or flour mixed with oil, then it was to be equally divided among the sons of Aaron.

(11) "'And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which he shall offer to the LORD: (12) If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, or cakes of fine flour mixed with oil and fried.'"

As discussed previously at the end of The Law of the Peace Offering, the peace offering was a voluntary offering made to God that appears to have been either in thanksgiving for peace and prosperity, or as a vow to make peace and reconciliation with God, the latter to be further explained in this chapter.  The Lord began his instructions for peace offering sacrifices with the one offered as thanksgiving.  If the offering was a thank offering for mercies received, then the offerer was to offer, along with his sacrifice (described in chapter 3 of Leviticus as an animal of the herd or of the flock), unleavened cakes mixed with oil.  The cakes could be prepared in various different ways--baked cakes of flour mixed with oil, thin wafers spread with oil, or pan-fried cakes of flour mixed with oil.

(13) "‘Besides the cakes, he shall offer as his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering.'"

Besides the unleavened cakes, leavened bread was also to be offered with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering.  It should be noted that leavened bread was never to be burned on the altar, as that was forbidden (Lev. 2:11), but was given to the priest to be eaten.

(14) "‘And from it he shall offer one cake from the whole oblation as a heave offering to the LORD, and it shall be the priest's who sprinkles the blood of the peace offering.'"

One cake from the whole offering of cakes was to be offered as a "heave offering" to the Lord.  A heave offering was one that was literally heaved up, so one cake was to be heaved or offered up to the Lord, and then became the portion for the officiating priest.

(15) "'And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.'"

Having given directions about the cakes and bread that went along with the peace offerings, offered in thankfulness for mercies received, instructions were next given about eating the flesh of the offering.  It was to be eaten in the same day that it was offered, and none of it was to remain until the next morning.  In such a hot country, the flesh would be likely to putrefy, and as it was considered holy, it would have been improper to expose that which was consecrated to the Lord to be exposed to putrefaction.  Most of the commentaries I study agree that this was also intended to make the priests generous to their friends and family and to the poor.  Because it had to be eaten before morning, there was no room for miserly conduct and the storing up of it.  As Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, stated it, "The flesh of the peace-offerings was God's treat...", and He would have the priests be generous with it.

(16) "'But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day also the remainder of it may be eaten; (17) But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.'"

I have a hard time understanding the difference in the various types of offerings mentioned here, but this one is distinguished from the peace offering of thanksgiving from verse 11 and 12 above.  This peace offering involved a vow which may have been made that if God granted a particular benefit or outcome, then he would offer such a sacrifice.  The verse says "if the sacrifice...is a vow or a voluntary offering"; all peace offerings are voluntary, so the only thing I can figure that is meant is any other voluntary offering that is not a peace offering of thanksgiving.  The flesh of the sacrifice of a peace offering for thanksgiving had to be eaten the same day it was offered, but these other types of voluntary offerings could be eaten within two days.  Any left beyond that time was to be burned with fire.

(18) "‘And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him who offered it; it shall be an abomination and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.'"

If any of the flesh of the sacrifice was left to the third day and eaten on that day, that sacrifice would not be accepted by the Lord and it would not be counted as a righteous action.  Not only unacceptable, but it would be considered an abomination; and the one who ate of it would bear his iniquity, not only from doing what was forbidden in this act, but as his sacrifice was not accepted by God, he would also bear the iniquity for any sin for which he had offered the sacrifice.

(19) "'And the flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And as for the flesh, all who are clean may eat of it.'"

If any of the flesh of the sacrifice touched any unclean thing, it was not to be eaten, but burned with fire.  Suppose in carrying it from the altar to the place where it was eaten, a dog touched it, or it touched a dead body, an unclean person, or any other unclean thing, it was then unfit to be used in a religious feast, and was to be burned with fire.  As for the flesh that was considered clean, all who were clean could eat of it.

(20) "'But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people.'"

An unclean person who ate of the flesh of the peace offering sacrifice was to be cut off from his people.  Whether this was to be disfranchised as an Israelite or disbarred from the privileges of the sanctuary, or to be cut off by death, I am not sure.  Whatever pertains to the Lord is sacred, and must be used with great reverence and not with unhallowed hands.  We are told in 1 Corinthians 11:29 that those who eat and drink unworthily in the supper of our Lord, eat and drink damnation to themselves.

(21) "'Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

A person who might have been otherwise clean, at the moment he touched any unclean thing, was considered unclean himself, and could not partake of the flesh of the offering.  If he did, he was to be cut off from his people.

(22) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (23) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, but now told him to address the people, telling them they were not to eat any fat of ox, sheep, or goat.  A general prohibition against eating fat or blood was made back in Leviticus 3:17, but it is more completely explained here and in the next few verses.

(24) "‘And the fat of a beast that dies naturally, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use, but you shall by no means eat it.'"

The Lord is speaking of the same kind of beast as in the verse before, ox, sheep, and goat.  Even if those animals were not used in sacrifice, but died naturally, or were torn by a wild beast, the fat was not to be eaten.  The fat could be used for other things--lubricants, making candles, probably medicines, etc., but it was forbidden to eat it.

(25) "‘For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people.'"

Whoever ate the fat of an animal which men offer as a sacrifice to the Lord would be cut off from his people.  There is much discrepancy among the commentaries that I study as to exactly what fat is prohibited.  Did this particular verse refer only to the specific beast that was at that time being offered as a sacrifice?  Or did it mean all ox, sheep, and goats, that were the particular animals that were used in sacrifice?  If I continue with the same succession of the same "any fat, of ox or sheep or goat" from verse 23, then I would assume this would refer to the fat of all oxen, sheep, and goats, because those were the animals that were used in sacrifices to the Lord.  It would seem that the fat of other animals was allowed which would include the fat of clean beasts like deer.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, argued that this passage must only refer to the animals when they were offered as sacrifices, or perhaps only to that mid-section of fat that was described in the rules for sacrifices, and could by no means include all fat because fat was one of the special blessings God gave His people:

"So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and you drank the pure blood of the grape." - Deuteronomy 32:12-14

I have to disagree with Mr. Clarke because there is too much symbolism in this passage.  Why would you at the same time assume that sucking honey out of a rock, fat kidneys of wheat, and blood from a grape were symbolic, but the fat of lambs, etc., was literal?  All these terms obviously refer to the richness and abundance of the food mentioned.

(26) "‘Moreover you shall not eat any manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.'"

Whereas the prohibition of fat was restricted to animals that were used in sacrifice, the people were forbidden to eat any manner of blood.  Whether it came from birds or beasts, even if it was consumed in their own dwellings far from the altar of the tabernacle, still it was not to be eaten.  Blood made atonement for the soul and was a picture of the blood of Christ to come, and required greater respect and reverence.

(27) "‘Whoever eats any manner of blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

A person who ate any blood was to be cut off from his people, which probably meant he was to be excommunicated or cut off from the people of God, and so deprived of any part of their inheritance or blessings.  There were instances when this meant cut off from life, but at this point, I am not certain when life was given for these type of offenses.

(28) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (29) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘He who offers the sacrifice of his peace offerings to the LORD shall bring his oblation to the LORD from the sacrifice of his peace offerings. (30) His own hands shall bring the offerings made by fire to the LORD; the fat with the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD.'"

The Lord continued to tell Moses what to tell the people.  Whoever offered a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord was to bring his offering "from the sacrifice of his peace offerings" with his own hands.  He was to bring with his own hands the parts of the peace offering that were to be burnt with fire and also the breast that was to be waved as a wave offering to the Lord.  Matthew Henry stated it this way, "he might signify thereby his cheerfully giving it up to God, and his desire that it might be accepted. He was with his own hands to lift it up, in token of his regard to God as the God of heaven, and then to wave it to and fro, in token of his regard to God as the Lord of the whole earth, to whom thus, as far as he could reach, he offered it, showing his readiness and wish to do him honour."

(31) "‘And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’.'"

The priest was to burn the fat on the altar, but the breast was to be Aaron's and his sons', it having been waved before the Lord for a wave offering, was the Lord's, and so was given to his priests to eat.

(32) "'And the right shoulder you shall give to the priest for a heave offering from the sacrifices of your peace offerings.'"

The priest was also given the right shoulder of the peace offering for a heave offering.  Whereas a wave offering was in a gesture to and fro from side to side, the heave offering was heaved or offered up and then back down.  Early Biblical scholars pointed out that these motions indicated a cross, and pointed to the coming Messiah who would die for us on a cross.

(33) "‘He among the sons of Aaron, who offers the blood of the peace offering and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.'"

The priest who officiated and offered the blood and the fat of the peace offering was to have the right shoulder for his portion.  It would appear that the breast was given to all the priests, but the shoulder was given only to the officiating priest.

(34) "'For the wave breast and the heave shoulder I have taken from the children of Israel, from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons by a statute forever from among the children of Israel.'"

The breast that was waved and the right shoulder that was heaved the Lord had taken from the sacrifices of the people's peace offerings and had given them to Aaron and his sons, the priests, by an everlasting statute as long as the priesthood lasted, to the coming of the Messiah, in whom all these sacrifices would have their accomplishment and their end.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, wrote, "The breast or heart is the seat of wisdom, and the shoulder of strength for action; and these two may denote that wisdom, and power, which were in Christ our high-priest, and which ought to be in every priest.'"

(35) This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister to the LORD in the priest's office; (36) Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute forever throughout their generations.

This was to be the portion of the offerings that was to be given to Aaron and his sons who were anointed as priests.  In the day they were ordained to that priestly office this provision was made for them by God, and was to be a statute forever that they should bring these offerings according to the rules prescribed and cheerfully give the priests their share out of them until the coming of the Messiah.

(37) This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the consecrations, and the sacrifice of the peace offering, (38) Which the LORD commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day when He commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations to the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai.

With the Lord no longer speaking, this is a summary statement by Moses of the laws of the different types of offerings detailed in chapters 6 and 7 above--the burnt offering (6:9), the grain offering (6:14), the sin offering (6:25), the trespass offering (7:1), the consecrations of Aaron and his sons to the priest's office (6:20), and the sacrifice of the peace offering (7:11).  It appears these laws were given to Moses when he was on the mount with God, or perhaps at it, when He called to Moses out of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev. 1:1), and began instructing the children of Israel on how to offer their oblations to the Lord in the tabernacle which they made for Him in the wilderness of Sinai.  As I, myself, get confused by the different types of sacrifices, I am including parts of a summary made by Adam Clarke of "a general account of them, and a definition of the original terms, as well as of all others relative to this subject which are used in the Old Testament, and the reference in which they all stood to the great sacrifice offered by Christ."  The list format and ideas are Clarke's, of which I only included some, but the words are generally mine and not exact quotes:

1. Asham - Trespass Offering - From "asham" meaning "guilt".  I couldn't help but note the similarity to our word "ashame".  In this sacrifice guilt was considered as being transferred to the animal offered up to God, and the offerer was redeemed from the penalty of his sin.  Christ is said to have made His soul an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10).

2. Chattaah - Sin Offering - From "chata" meaning "to miss", to miss the mark, to sin.  The sin offering was an acknowledgement of guilt in having missed the mark of God's and also of the sinner's intent to return to God.

3. Minchah - Grain Offering - Although I did not see this specifically when I studied the word origin, Clarke said that this came from the word "nach", meaning "to rest, settle after toil".  He suggested it may have its name from that rest from labor or toil which a man had when the fruits of the harvest were brought in.

4. Nedabah - Free Will or Voluntary Offering (Lev. 7:16) - From "nadab" meaning "to be free, liberal".  This offering was not commanded, but was given in gratitude to God for special mercies, or for some vow voluntarily taken.

5. Olah - Burnt Offering - From "alah" meaning "to ascend", because this offering, being wholly consumed by fire, ascended to God in smoke and vapor.  Clarke pointed out this "was a very expressive type of the sacrifice of Christ, as nothing less than his complete and full sacrifice could make atonement for the sin of the world. In most other offerings the priest, and often the offerer, had a share, but in the whole burnt-offering all was given to God."

6. Shelamim - Peace Offering - Clarke said the word for the peace offering was "shelamim", but I see it in verses 11 and 37 as "shelem", from the root "shalam" meaning "to be completed, made whole".  By these offerings that which was lacking or broken by sin was made whole.  The sinner could again be at peace in a covenant of peace with his Lord.  Ephesians 2:14 says that Christ is our peace; He was the ultimate peace offering that healed the breach between God and man.

7. Tenuphah - Wave Offering - From the root "nuph" meaning "to wave".  It was an offering to God, waved before Him, back and forth, from right hand to the left, in an expression and acknowledgement of God's providential goodness.

8. Terumah - Heave Offering - From "rum", "to lift up".  This offering was lifted or heaved up to heaven.  The wave offering was waved from left to right, and the heave offering up and down.  As has been suggested before, these motions formed a cross and were symbolic of the coming Messiah who would die on a cross.